Gear & Gadgets —

Intel: Thunderbolt optical cabling coming this year

Intel still plans to get optical cabling for its Thunderbolt high-speed …

Users will be able to connect Thunderbolt-equipped peripherals to remote hosts using optical cabling in 2012, Intel told IDG News Service on Monday. The company reaffirmed its commitment to get optical cabling on the market this year, which will allow much longer cable runs beyond the current three meter limit. This, in turn, will allow the technology to achieve higher transmission speeds in the future.

Thunderbolt originally began life as an optical cable interconnect dubbed "LightPeak." By the time it reached the market in early 2011, however, optical cabling was abandoned for standard copper. Copper cabling offered the advantage of lower cost as well as the ability to send as much as 10W of power to peripherals, while still matching the originally planned 10Gbps bidirectional data rate. Still, copper cabling can only reach approximately six meters theoretical maximum, and won't be able to scale much beyond 10Gbps.

Optical cabling will allow cabling runs as long as "tens of meters," perhaps as long as the length of a football field. However, devices won't be able to receive power at that distance—impedance issues would make sending up to 10W impractical, Intel spokesperson Dave Salvatore said.

Using fiber optics will also enable Thunderbolt to push beyond 10Gbps to speeds planned as high as 100Gbps by the end of this decade. Intel promised optical cabling would come sometime in 2012 last year, and it plans to stand by that promise, though solid release dates or pricing still haven't been announced.

Thunderbolt adoption has been limited so far by a few factors. One is that the technology is only currently available on Macs, though several PC vendors have Thunderbolt-equipped machines ready for release when Intel ships its next-generation Ivy Bridge platform. Also, the number of peripherals available has been small, though a couple dozen products should be shipping within the next couple of months. Finally, Apple has so far been the only source of Thunderbolt cables. The company's $50 cable should be joined by at least one other option soon—hopefully at a lower price.

Optical cabling that will be released this year will likely be limited to niche uses that require a peripheral to be as much as a couple hundred feet from a host machine. The cabling will be expensive, too—cost of optical cabling was one of the reasons Intel cited for its decision to launch Thunderbolt with a copper interconnect. However, optical cabling will be backwards compatible due to a design that includes a transceiver at each end of a Thunderbolt cable.

"[Apple's] $50 cable should be joined by at least one other option... " can you be more specific?

Sumitomo Electric apparently started shipping their cable at the end of last year ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/5421/sumi ... bolt-cable ), but I don't believe to the general public even as of now (seeing as you can't buy them anywhere). With any luck, they'll be 1/2 - 1/4 the cost of Apple's cable... that would definitely be the start of hopefully a trend in driving the cost of Thunderbolt down.

I'm just waiting for someone to put out a Thunderbolt gigabit dongle for the MBA. I have the USB dongle, but it would be so much nicer to have gigabit available. It's kind of sad that the thing's air interface is faster than its copper.

The current problem with Thunderbolt is Apple has pretty much made people think it should compete with USB 3.0. This is very wrong. Thunderbolt is a external PCIe bus suitable for low-level stuff such as external GPUs or docking station-like devices (like Apple's latest display), while USB 3.0 makes more sense for higher-level stuff like storage.

At this point it's still unclear if Apple's current lack of USB 3.0 is due either to waiting for Intel to support it directly in their chipsets (ie. Ivy Bridge), or a short-to-long term agenda to present it as a direct competitor to USB 3.0. We'll probably know it for sure on the next Mac refresh. In any case I really hope it's the former. The latter would be stupid and counterproductive, and could potentially kill Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt is superior to USB 3.0 because the IOMMU (aka "Intel VT-d") maps a protected DMA space for each device to access directly. This is a really clean and efficient way to support high-performance peripherals, and it is a straightforward extension of the existing PCIe bus to external devices.

What would be the use case for such long TB cables? I could see some niche uses like as a really long DisplayPort extension for hooking up to projectors or big screens, but what uses would there be that could actually drive the costs down on these cables? Does Intel intend for people to build SANs or other kinds of networks with this technology?

As for costs, I could not find any specs on what kind of fiber TB requires, but using 10Gig Ethernet as a guide, you can get a 30m fiber cable for around $50. That would be a cable with one single 850nm graded-index multimode fiber, without transceivers. So depending on the cost of the transceivers, they shouldn't be crazy expensive, but I'm sure they'll be more than the copper version.

Optical cabling doesn't have to be expensive. What's the actual spec of the optical cables, and how much will they actually cost?

There are structured cabling bundles that include fiber. I put one of these in my own walls because it turned out to be a relatively insignificant price increase over the bundle that did not include it.

If I could finally find a way to use my pre-wired fiber without taking out a 3rd mortgage, then I would be a happy camper.

Thunderbolt is superior to USB 3.0 because the IOMMU (aka "Intel VT-d") maps a protected DMA space for each device to access directly. This is a really clean and efficient way to support high-performance peripherals, and it is a straightforward extension of the existing PCIe bus to external devices.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

Let me know when USB 3.0 allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

Thunderbolt is superior to USB 3.0 because the IOMMU (aka "Intel VT-d") maps a protected DMA space for each device to access directly. This is a really clean and efficient way to support high-performance peripherals, and it is a straightforward extension of the existing PCIe bus to external devices.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

*Currently* superior in those areas.. for now. GPUs and gig NICs used to be expensive, but now they are integrated and not even considered a real cost.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them.

Yeah, and CD will be a failed format because burners cost $1000 right (1990 dollars at that)? Very future looking.

TB is inherently more costly then USB3, but the core cost differential is only a few bucks. Whether it can ramp up sufficient to hit the curve better down the road and have sufficient killer apps to justify even a $10 difference (external PCIe seems the most potentially compelling to me, but it may be something else or a range) remains to be seen, but having something expensive at the start of the curve is not an interesting argument to make.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

Let me know when USB 3.0 allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

With the exception of one Sony notebook, let me know when Thunderbolt allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them.

Yeah, and CD will be a failed format because burners cost $1000 right (1990 dollars at that)? Very future looking.

TB is inherently more costly then USB3, but the core cost differential is only a few bucks. Whether it can ramp up sufficient to hit the curve better down the road and have sufficient killer apps to justify even a $10 difference (external PCIe seems the most potentially compelling to me, but it may be something else or a range) remains to be seen, but having something expensive at the start of the curve is not an interesting argument to make.

What was the name of that low cost competing standard that the consumer could barely notice the difference between to CDs? The name slips my mind right now, but it makes it the perfect comparison when you include it.

Something expensive when there is a cheaper alternative and no discernible reason not to use the cheaper alternative is a gigantic problem for TB. It's not like they can employ Apple's marketing spin or get exclusive rights in order to sell it. Not unless Intel decides to support it by releasing well priced external GPUs (which seems unlikely).

And having one killer feature doesn't matter if USB3 is still cheaper at everything else. eSATA was way faster than USB2 but never saw much adoption because that killer feature wasn't really all that killer to users who just wanted to access their external harddrives. It's also really hard to compete with the king,

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

Let me know when USB 3.0 allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

With the exception of one Sony notebook, let me know when Thunderbolt allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

Thunderbolt is effectively just external PCIe. As such, that sort of thing is one of the expected applications as the controller chip volumes increase and prices drop once Intel does the upcoming refinement/shrink. The Magma ExpressBox (both single and triple versions) are already available, albeit very expensive right now. Sonnet is working on the Echo TB PCIe expansion chassis, and at CES 2012 MSI demo'd is GUS II as well.

Again, still very, very early adopter territory, and I don't think that'll change at all before this summer. A lot of variables can affect how well a given type of tech takes off, but the capability is absolutely there already.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them.

Yeah, and CD will be a failed format because burners cost $1000 right (1990 dollars at that)? Very future looking.

CD also had much broader upgrade and use cases while having much better specs and compatibility over the competion. Right now USB3 does everything TB can do except the edge use cases that require the extra bandwidth (external raid, external GPU, display output encapsulation) while offering backwards compatibility to *all* previous USB2 (and USB1.1, I think) devices, while being able to be freely upgraded to without replacing the entire machine, and having multiple manufacturers being able to integrate USB3 separate of chipset implementation. TB has the multiple whammies of being expensive, tied to a single vendor for a significant amount of time, limited device variety, being tied to a display interface (no TB port without having a GPU attached to it on the host side), and Intel generally being stingy about licensing it. What TB should have been was what Sony eventually ended up with: a high speed optical bus that didn't try to be and wasn't tied to anything else.

What was the name of that low cost competing standard that the consumer could barely notice the difference between to CDs? The name slips my mind right now, but it makes it the perfect comparison when you include it.

What, do you want to go through every single new technology introduced, whether there was competition or not? Because every single last one of them was the same: started very expensive, worked its way down in price.

Quote:

Something expensive when there is a cheaper alternative and no discernible reason not to use

Here you're begging the question. "No discernible reason" is your subjective opinion, whether or not that ultimately is the case for a sufficient amount of the market is what it's about. Either way, that doesn't change that Bad Monkey!'s point was very short sighted.

Quote:

Not unless Intel decides to support it by releasing well priced external GPUs (which seems unlikely).

Um, Intel has no directly involvement with that, they just make the chips, and their focus is (and should be) on getting the price down and volume up on those and eventually integrating them into the standard chipset. Any third party can go ahead and make PCIe expansion boxes or whatever else if they want to, Intel doesn't feature beyond the core technology level (they could provide extra marketing dollars or something if they wanted, but there's no requirement for them to handle anything).

Quote:

And having one killer feature doesn't matter if USB3 is still cheaper at everything else.

Of course it matters, it's what it all revolves around: does the extra value provide a compelling reason to absorb the extra cost for a sufficient base to drive the manufacturing? Stuff can coexist, and TB doesn't need to utterly dominate to do decently well. An easy dock with good external GPU capability would, in a world revolving ever more around mobile, probably be enough by itself to sustain it.

What would be the use case for such long TB cables? I could see some niche uses like as a really long DisplayPort extension for hooking up to projectors or big screens, but what uses would there be that could actually drive the costs down on these cables? Does Intel intend for people to build SANs or other kinds of networks with this technology?

As for costs, I could not find any specs on what kind of fiber TB requires, but using 10Gig Ethernet as a guide, you can get a 30m fiber cable for around $50. That would be a cable with one single 850nm graded-index multimode fiber, without transceivers. So depending on the cost of the transceivers, they shouldn't be crazy expensive, but I'm sure they'll be more than the copper version.

We run a lot of things over cat5 extenders- Thunderbolt could theoretically remove that 3rd party limitation. Hopefully it will allow the use of existing fiber runs so we would be able to move some of our existing infrastructure. But to be able to plug in two cables and get 2 monitors, audio, and all inputs, plus the potential utility of one or two IO devices in the room, while the main machine sits in a machine room (where it can be as loud and hot as it needs to be) would be awesome.

As would TB hubs, so you could actually do a fast SAN network with built-in ports (and where the price of cabling would be a little higher than for FC, but the lack of interface boards would make the endeavor less expensive overall).

Right now USB3 does everything TB can do except all the things that it can't

Right, that was insightful. You then go ahead and just dismiss all those things it can't do, because apparently you don't find them that compelling (maybe you're one of those weirdos with a desktop computer or something). That just doesn't say much about the market as a whole. It's going to be a good 9-12 months I think until it'll be clearer whether TB will really wither or have a success curve, and if the latter exactly what type of curve that'll be.

Right now USB3 does everything TB can do except all the things that it can't

Right, that was insightful. You then go ahead and just dismiss all those things it can't do,

I'm not dismissing them, I'm just saying the the marginal benefits that it offers aren't great enough over USB3 to be significant to the vast majority of the market. I'm sure they'll be useful to somebody, just not enough somebodies to matter.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

Let me know when USB 3.0 allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

Let me know when Apple's Thunderbolt lets me do the same. At the moment I need to buy a Sony laptop, which uses different interconnects anyway.

My feeling is that active cables, i.e., those with electronics built into them, are a bad idea for consumer electronics. If you thought these greasy tech shops selling HDMI cables to grandma at 1000% mark-up were bad, just wait until they can point to a reason for the cable being so expensive. If I understand correctly, only the optical Thunderbolt cable was going to require that.

I'd expect a price increase for higher quality cables, though. Ethernet cable has always been twisted pair (literally pairs of 26 AWG wire twisted around one another), which is the cheapest of the cheap and does a bad job at impedance matching. A cable with each individual conductor a proper co-ax cable is going to cost.

USB3 is superior to Thunderbolt because devices and peripherals are available for it without having to sell off firstborn children in order to be able to afford them. This is a really clean and efficient way to drive consumer adoption.

Let me know when USB 3.0 allows you to connect a video card to it for a net graphics performance gain.

That's only of value to a Mac user.

For the rest of us, you're better even buying a completely new machine instead.

Although most desktop PCs allow cheap easy upgrading of the GPU.

Trying to sell overpriced GPU dongles to the rest of the market is really a non-starter.